I track people who are disrupting the world of mobile technology. Non-conformists, innovators and agitators are this blog's unsung heroes, from entrepreneurs to scientists, to rebellious hackers. I'm the author of "We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous and the Global Cyber Insurgency", (Little Brown, 2012) which The New York Times called a "lively, startling book that reads as 'The Social Network' for group hackers." I recently relocated to Forbes' San Francisco office, and was previously Forbes' London bureau chief from 2008-12, interviewing British billionaires like Philip Green and controversial figures like Mohammed Al Fayed; I wrote last year's billionaires cover story on Russia's Yuri Milner, and have broken stories like the Facebook-Spotify partnership in 2011. Before all this I had stints at the BBC and as a radio journalist. You can watch me on 'The Daily Show' here. If you have a story idea or tip, e-mail me at polson@forbes.com or follow me on Twitter: parmy.

Billionaire Roman Abramovich Just Won The Biggest Private Court Battle In History

He was a mentor and long-standing business partner, but for the last three months, exiled Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky battled old friend Roman Abramovich in the largest private court battle in history — and lost.

When British High Court judge Elizabeth Gloster sat down in the commercial court Friday morning she said, almost from the outset, that she was dismissing Berezovsky’s $5.6 billion lawsuit against younger oligarch Abramovich, and his claims of cheating “in their entirety.”

Berezovsky, who is 65 and has been living in the U.K. since he won asylum here in 2003, had been an “unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness” during court proceedings, she said. “I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events.”

Berezovsky, who sat in a large court room lit by rows of halogen lights, put his head in his hands after he heard the verdict. For the next hour as Gloster read out her judgement, he remained almost expressionless, occasionally sipping from a glass of water or speaking quietly to his lawyer. He wore a grey suit and white shirt, with no tie.

When the court adjourned, the normally media-friendly Berezovsky met a large group of photographers and dozens of journalists outside the High Court to give his reaction, saying he was “absolutely amazed” by the decision to dismiss his case. “I’m surprised completely, particularly because Lady Gloster took responsibility for rewriting Russian history,” he said, adding that he would consider appealing.

Abramovich, 45, wasn’t present at the hearing, with reports saying he was in Monte Carlo to watch a Friday-night match by the English soccer team he owns, Chesea Football Club. But he did release a statement through his spokesman, saying he was “pleased and grateful for today’s outcome.”

In contrast to Berezovsky, Judge Gloster had mostly praise for Abramovich’s appearances in the courtroom, calling him a “truthful” and “reliable witness.” While Berezovsky would depart from his previous statements, sometimes “within minutes” of giving it, Abramovich “gave careful and thoughtful answers.”

The London-based trial, which has reportedly cost millions of dollars in legal fees, has laid bare a string of details about the life of a billionaire Russian oligarch, revealing the details about the yachts, planes and expensive estates in France that Berezovsky was alleged to have been given as protection payments from Abramovich.

Berezovsky had brought two claims against Abramovich, whose formulation, the judge said, had “changed over time”:

1) He said that Abramovich had coerced him into selling a stake in the Russian oil behemoth Sibneft for $1.3 billion — an enormous sum for mere mortals but not enough for Berezovsky, who claimed it was undervalued and that he had been cheated out of $5 billion.

2) That Abramovich had reneged on oral agreements made over the ownership and division of aluminium giant RusAl. Berezovsky claimed that his loss in relation to RusAl was at least $564 million.

The problem with these claims, particularly over the RusAl deals, was that they were often based on oral contracts. Most of the agreements about RusAl were said to have been made during discussions between a few men, including Abramovich, Berezovsky and nickel billionaire Oleg Deripaska, in London’s Dorchester Hotel between 1998 and 1999. That’s almost 14 years ago.

Judge Gloster pointed out that most witness would struggle to remember specific details from conversations from such stale evidence. With the burden of proof laying on the apparently-unreliable Berezovsky, there were no notes, memoranda or any documents recorded during the alleged meetings as evidence of their terms.

Abramovich had also contended that $1.3 billion he’d paid Berezovsky wasn’t for any stake in Sibneft — which he claimed the older oligarch didn’t even own — but protection money, known as “kryshin” in Russian (the literal translation is “ roof”) to afford him influence with then-president Boris Yeltsin. Berezovsky is firmly out of favor with Vladimir Putin now, but back in the late 90′s he was said to be a powerbroker within the Kremlin who had the ear of Yeltsin. He was thus a useful friend to have for anyone, like Abramovich, who was trying to build a big business out of the chaotic dissolution of the Soviet Empire.

Gloster suggested that Berezovsky had, over the years, dramatically misinterpreted facts. After offering political influence to Abramovich during the Yeltsin era, he may have regarded himself as entitled to “a piece of the Sibneft action,” or to have even “owned” Abramovich. ie. translating that into the belief that he owned a stake in Sibneft.

“That, in a very loose sense, was the nature of the deal with Mr. Abramovich, and the nature of many payments under so-called patronage or ‘protection’ arrangements,” she added. “But that does not translate in the complicated contractual agreement for which Mr. Berezovsky contended.”

The harsh lesson for Berezovsky is that in his world of powerful oligarchs and shifting empires, multi-billion dollar oral contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

What a day, eh? Two of Russia’s oligarchs slogging it out in the ENGLISH courts? The point at issue – did an oligarch extort money? Surely not? No one would consider that possible, that’s for sure. What a waste of the taxpayers’ money!

And why did the case take place in England when all the disputed events took place in Russia? Anyone would think they felt that it was impossible to get justice in Russia. Could any Russian court be biased and corrupt? Surely not? Just look at Pussy Riot or Khodorkovsky to see that Russian courts dole out their verdicts, regardless of whether you’re rich or poor!

But don’t you love Mrs Justice Gloster? No one could accuse her of holding back, eh? Just read what she had to say:

“On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them.”

Strong stuff, certainly. Brave woman. The ageing Berezovsky obviously upset her, I guess. By contrast, she found the youthful Mr Abramovich to be a truthful and reliable witness. Well, well.

Enough said, eh? Want to know more? Then read THE OLIGARCH: A THRILLER – see http://www.theoligarchthriller.com

What a day, eh? Two of Russia’s oligarchs slogging it out in the ENGLISH courts? The point at issue – did an oligarch extort money? Surely not? No one would consider that possible, that’s for sure. What a waste of the taxpayers’ money!

And why did the case take place in England when all the disputed events took place in Russia? Anyone would think they felt that it was impossible to get justice in Russia. Could any Russian court be biased and corrupt? Surely not? Just look at Pussy Riot or Khodorkovsky to see that Russian courts dole out their verdicts, regardless of whether you’re rich or poor!

But don’t you love Mrs Justice Gloster? No one could accuse her of holding back, eh? Just read what she had to say:

“On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them.”

Strong stuff, certainly. Brave woman. The ageing Berezovsky obviously upset her, I guess. By contrast, she found the youthful Mr Abramovich to be a truthful and reliable witness. Well, well.

Enough said, eh? Want to know more? Then read THE OLIGARCH: A THRILLER – see http://www.theoligarchthriller.com

Hypothetically, let’s say Abramovich never seized control of these formally state owned assets. If it wasn’t him, someone else would’ve done the same thing, but let’s put this aside for a moment.

Abramovich is a talented businessman and organizer who can think outside the box. What exactly would a bunch of square headed government bureaucrats, plant mangers, factory workers, and politicians, together, do with a huge oil company—at that time? The answer is simple: the company would’ve been wolfishly, foolishly looted and ripped to pieces. When the dust would settle, a critical and valuable assent would be reduced to a dysfunctional mess. How would this benefit the Russian people?

Many sources in Russia accuse Abramovich of being a thief. Stupid people always accuse smarter people of being thieves and scoundrels, especially if the smarter ones happen to be Jewish. Clearly, a thick line of anti-semitism permeates all the complaints against Abramovich—but this is an old tradition in Russia. Critics of Abramovich are hypocrites and could care less about Russia and its people; they’re simply mad that it was not them who had the brains, luck, and resources to do the same thing.

For certain Russian government officials to complain about Abramovich, this is like a pathological liar preaching the virtues of honesty. You can’t be a thief if you steal from thieves. The entire modern history of Russian business and commerce, especially in the upper levels, was and is based on cronyism and thievery of one sort or another. For ages the Russian people lived in a state of deprivation – much of it artificially generated in order to control average people – while the government hierarchy stuffed their bloated faces all day.

By comparison, Abramovich is the most honest businessman in Russia. He didn’t go around lying to average people, promising to make their lives heavenly and bountiful. He saw a business opportunity, bought low, sold high, and then expanded further. Abramovich has been accused of being cunning and manipulative, but these are necessary qualities for any successful businessman, never mind a Russian billionaire. Not a single successful businessman on Earth has achieved great heights by being soft, open, and easily comprehended. That doesn’t mean they’re like that to people they care about; they’re simply using the tools necessary to get the job done.